<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Complete Rubbish
Review: It doesn't seem to matter that Eisenman's buildings are hated by the public, fail as mature works of urbanism and are founded on an adolescent-grade ('Philosophy 101 for Juniors') theoretical basis. Eisenman's sucess is largely within the cliquey New York-European quasi-intellectual circle of professionals whose status is largely self-serving within their own limited circle. If you want to learn about architecture and urbanism, try Camillo Sitte, James Howard Kunstler, Jane Jacobs, Ada Louise Huxtable, William H. White, or any of the urban theorists who'se work is based on observation of actual human behavior, not speculations dreamed up to match a catchy diagram.Eisenman is at best playing with himself (and we all know what a sign of maturity that is!). If you are young and impressionable, this sort of activity might grab your attention. But if you are seeking intelligent discourse, look elsewhere ... almost anywhere elswhere will do. Eisenman's books are not worth the toilet paper they are written on.
Rating:
Summary: Nonsensical Posturing
Review: It is no surprise that Eisenman's biggest following is among impressionable students. Any thinking person can easily see through the quasi-rhetorical posturing that Eisenman is most well known for. His an architecture of words only, with little real concern for the pragmatics of existence, the quality of urban spaces or just about anything that constitutes a workable, livable environment. More basically, the images themselves are uninteresting as architecture. They owe more to the technology of the computer and what IT can do, to any understanding of how quality spaces are formed, used, inhabited or designed in any meaningful way. Eisenman is at best a fad, but if learning about architecture is important, try looking for a few books on the work of Kahn, Barragan, Scarpa, Lutyens, Aalto, among others. As they say, "Those who can, - do. Those who can't, - talk (or write)". Unless you are insecure and seeking to impress people with 2nd-rate theorizing, give this guy a miss.
Rating:
Summary: Thin & Superficial
Review: The title says it best. This is a series of diagrams which attempt to throw light on Eisenman's mostly superficial design ideas. Like much of his work, Eisenman fails to grasp intelligent spatial concepts, preferring instead the easy road of 2-dimensional graphic diagrams so lacking in any really meaningful or intuitive qualities that one onders whether these illustrations were intended for the design of a computer chipset or as spaces for human occupancy. Anyone who has seen (suffered?) the Wexner Center or the Columbus Convention Center will know that Eisenman is not capable of making good buildings. They have the thin, diagrammatic qualities of a full-size cardboard mock-up, not the substantive place-making associated with real architectural projects. Any casual walk around the city with your eyes open will be more instructive about the practice of architecture than reading a single page of this silly tome. Give this one a wide berth.
<< 1 >>
| 
